Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-30T05:20:05.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two modes of equality matching: positive and negative direct reciprocity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Montana Shore ,
Rachael Silberstein  and
Peter R. Blake Open the ORCID record for Peter R. Blake [Opens in a new window]
Montana Shore
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA mjshore@bu.edu rsilb@bu.edu pblake@bu.edu
Rachael Silberstein
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA mjshore@bu.edu rsilb@bu.edu pblake@bu.edu
Peter R. Blake*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA mjshore@bu.edu rsilb@bu.edu pblake@bu.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Equality matching describes a mode in which reciprocal relationships are maintained. While Thomas argues for core representations that can support equality matching, we argue that two forms of reciprocity must be considered and may require distinct representations: positive and negative direct reciprocity. We review both evolutionary and developmental evidence in support of this proposal.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e48
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benozio, A., House, B. R., & Tomasello, M. (2024). Gender and cultural differences in the development of reciprocity in young children. Developmental Psychology, 60(6), 1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001734 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1992). Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(92)90032-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernyak, N., Leimgruber, K. L., Dunham, Y. C., Hu, J., & Blake, P. R. (2019). Paying back people who harmed us but not people who helped us: Direct negative reciprocity precedes direct positive reciprocity in early development. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1273–1286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment in animal societies. Nature, 373(6511), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/373209a0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2010). Intention-Mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychological Science, 21(4), 523–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364119 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 207–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-081920-042106 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, B., Henrich, J., Sarnecka, B., & Silk, J. B. (2013). The development of contingent reciprocity in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, K., Marshall, J., & McLaughlin, A. (2025). Beyond punishment: Psychological foundations of restorative interventions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.11.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x11002160 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raihani, N., & Bshary, R. (2019). Punishment: One tool, many uses. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 1, e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2019.18 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatone, D., Geraci, A., & Csibra, G. (2015). Giving and taking: Representational building blocks of active resource-transfer events in human infants. Cognition, 137, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaish, A., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children selectively avoid helping people with harmful intentions. Child Development, 81(6), 1661–1669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01500.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2013). The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Z., & Gao, X. (2018). Preschoolers’ group bias in punishing selfishness in the ultimatum game. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.015 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed